NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Recent Rubin Reports

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

WE ESPECIALLY NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION NOW IN ORDER TO DO RESEARCH,
PUBLICATIONS AND PROJECTS ON THE NEW ERA IN MIDDLE EAST HISTORY. I HOPE THAT
OUR ACCURATE PREDICTIONS AND ANALYSIS HAVE EARNED YOUR SUPPORT. THIS IS THE
MOST CRITICAL MOMENT FOR THE MIDDLE EAST, ITS PEOPLES, AND ISRAEL IN AT LEAST
THREE AND ARGUABLY SIX DECADES

These are actual New York Times headlines used in covering the 1932 German and 2011 Egyptian elections. It is not meant to suggest that these two events are exactly the same but to suggest that people should take seriously the immense importance of what is taking place in Egypt. Graphic by Martin Berman-Gorvine

-------

By
Barry Rubin

Since
last February I have predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would win elections
in Egypt. People have thought me very pessimistic. I have warned and warned that this is a disaster for Western interests, Israel, and ultimately the Egyptian people themselves. I have detailed why this was going to happen and how it was going to change the history of the Middle East.

Now the votes are starting to
come in and…it’s much worse than I thought. But my prediction that the
Brotherhood and the other Islamists would gain a slight majority seems to have
been fulfilled and then some. According to most reports the Brotherhood is
scoring at just below 40 percent all by itself.

Why
worse? For two reasons:

First,
the votes we now have come from the most urban areas of the country. If there
are Facebook sophisticates they’re going to be in Cairo and Alexandria. If the
moderates do that bad in the big cities, what’s going to happen in the villages
up the Nile? If the fascist party came in first in some European countries
Social Democratic districts you know you are in trouble.

The
Brotherhood came in first in Cairo and Alexandria. Think about that. Of course
there are millions of migrants from rural areas in those places but that’s also
where the middle class, such as it is, lives.

Second,
the moderate parties didn’t even come in second they came in third or close to
it. The Salafists—that is people who are even more radical than the Muslim
Brotherhood—came in second. That they did that well is a surprise. That they did
that well without bumping the Brotherhood down a notch is really shocking.

“The stars are dead. The animals will not look./We are left alone with our day, and the time is short, and/History to the defeated/may say Alas but cannot help nor pardon.” –W.H. Auden, “Spain, 1937”

By Barry Rubin

You’ve almost certainly never heard of Rafiq Tagi but the drip-drip drumbeat that has so long made much of the Middle East into a living Hell is like the drops of his blood. Tagi was an Azerbaijaini writer of courage. He was stabbed by two men in Baku on the night of November 19. Five days later he died in a hospital bed. Sixty-one years old.

Tagi was one of those guys who had real guts and real convictions even though he knew for certain that his life was at risk every day. Not like the well-paid, safe and secure people who tremble about telling the truth so often found among the exalted intellectuals of the West. He said what he thought about his own government, criticized Islamism, and lambasted the regime of Iran which was not far from his home in Baku. The Iranian regime especially hated him.

Who killed Tagi? I asked a trusted friend in Baku who replied, “We don’t know for sure but everyone believes it was the Iranian regime.”

In 2007 he was sentenced to three years in jail for an article the previous year in which he said what he thought and even had included some of the Danish “Muhammad cartoons.” The president of the country pardoned him eight months later. Azerbaijan is a dictatorship but not a bloodthirsty totalitarian one. It’s the kind of dictatorship that the West likes to see overthrown even if it replaced by a bloodthirsty totalitarian one.

But the Azerbaijanis are scared, both government and a lot of the people. They wanted to have a modern, relatively secular state, prosperous and with equality for women. Naturally, they chose as a role model Turkey. Then they watched to their horror as Turkey turned into an Islamist-oriented country. The walls are closing in on them.

When Tagi wrote his aforementioned article the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani issued a fatwa calling for Tagi’s death.

That’s a fit measure of the difference between a country like Azerbaijan—three years’ sentence but quickly pardoned—and Iran—murder.

The radical is always the more glamorous. People wear Che Guevara tee-shirts. They don’t wear Samuel Gompers, A. Phillip Randolph, Edouard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, or Jean Jaures tee-shirts, yet those largely forgotten social democratic and labor heroes achieved far more benefit for reform and workers without murdering a lot of people.

Rosa Luxembourg, the nastiest rich spoiled brat in Zamosc, is fondly remembered though her career was a disaster and helped create the conditions that eventually brought about Nazism. Who knows about Frances Perkins, who did far more to help workers and was the first woman ever to be in the cabinet of an American president?

Thus, two things are certain. The extremist has better public relations and the extremist fails. Either he’s defeated, perhaps killed (dying the secular equivalent of the martyr’s death) or gains power, becomes horribly repressive, and messes up society big-time. In modern times, Yasir Arafat has been the king (perhaps I should say sultan) of lost causes, a fact which made him lionized in Europe.

Ah, the romance of the lost cause. Once the province of Irish Republicans, Polish nationalists, and sons or daughters of the Confederacy, the lost cause has an intense emotional appeal. There’s something stirring about defeat. And if you lose, you can’t be one of those evil rulers who actually have to show what your policies can do. At Civil War reenactments there are always more people wanting to be Confederates than Union soldiers. But if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, the ensuing additional decades of slavery would have put a damper on contemporary enthusiasm.

The same applies to the slave labor camps of Joe Stalin, or at least it should. But if the radicals do gain power, Hollywood actors can always go to visit Venezuelan dictators and glory in the man of action with the big mouth and the iron fist as he stamps on his demonized but actually helpless enemies....

All of these reflections come as a result of the open revival of the far left in the West, and especially in America. In recent years, the far left has prospered by pretending to be liberal. All of the dreams in the 1930s about infiltrating liberal organizations and taking over the Democratic Party have now come true.

But that doesn’t seem to be enough as the Occupy movement seeks to bring back the good old days of Stalinism. To hold such a position means that no one ever taught you at university anything about democratic political philosophy or the gaping holes in Marxism, not to mention the record of what Communism did when it was in power.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by
one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” --Edmund Burke
(1770)

By Barry Rubin
On the eve of the Egyptian election, I’m really disgusted with the collapse
of the moderate forces. While the Muslim Brotherhood is disciplined, united,
working hard, and on message, the moderates are running around in circles. There
is not the slightest sign of unity among the three main moderate parties (Wafd,
Justice, and Free Egyptians) and the dozens of smaller ones.

Consider that instead of putting their energy into organizing, uniting, and
getting out the vote, they are engaged in thoroughly useless demonstrations in
Tahrir Square. What is the goal of these demonstrations? On one hand, they
demand that the turnover of power be moved up; on the other hand, moderate
politicians speak of postponing the balloting. Muhammad ElBaradei, once the
Americans’ favorite candidate (before the Obama Administration switched to
backing the anti-American, antisemitic Muslim Brotherhood) is actually creating
his own virtual government! What a putz!

Think about it. How can the moderates demand an immediate turnover of power?
Turnover to whom? There is no executive authority. Clearly, no serious thought
has gone into this campaign. If anything they should be demanding that the
military stays in power longer since it is the only thing standing between them
and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And yet while the moderates are doing their Three Stooges routine over the
turnover of power, the issue has already been resolved! The Brotherhood made a
deal with the army junta and moved up the presidential elections by a full year.
Instead of June 2013, presidential elections will be held around June 2012.
That’s only seven months from now. And unless the moderate leaders drop their
own candidacy and get behind Amr Moussa, the Brotherhood will win that one,
too.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Muslim Brotherhood held a rally at Cairo’s most important mosque.
Demonstrators chanted, “One day we shall kill all Jews."

Question 1: How can you tell they are “moderate Islamists?”

Answer: They said “one day,” in other words, they aren’t going to do it this
week.

Question 2: At the rally someone said:

"In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in
Allah is the basis for everything. The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an
offensive by the Jews." Who was it?

Answer: Ahmed al-Tayeb, the “moderate” president of al-Azhar University and
arguably the most important Muslim cleric in Egypt. Note: al-Aqsa Mosque is not
under attack by Jews.

Question 3: Why did al-Tayeb talk this way in the context of calling for a
Jihad against Israel?

Answer: Maybe he isn't so moderate. But more importantly it is part of the
general radicalization of Islam that is going to happen in Egypt now that the
Brotherhood will be running the place and thus his desire to survive rather than be
branded a lackey of the Zionist-imperialist crusade to destroy Islam and have
his head cut off. (See Question 1.)

Question 4: Can someone be a “moderate Muslim” or “moderate Islamist” and
call for a Jihad to wipe Israel off the map?

Friday, November 25, 2011

In the last scene of the film “The Candidate,” about a U.S. Senate election, the victorious candidate expresses American cynicism about politics by asking, “What do we do now?” The idea is that politicians just want to get into power but have no idea of how to deal with problems or even a coherent worldview. Soon deadlock will set in and nothing is really going to change. It is the sarcasm fit for an open, non-ideological system where individual ambition prevails. But as long as there’s always another election, we know that things will be all right and life will be tolerable.

Not so in the Arabic-speaking Middle East. These politicians know precisely what they want to do: seize state power (albeit by peaceful means, if possible), fundamentally transform their societies, and hold onto state power forever. And they are capable of changing things a lot.

Naïve Western officials, journalists, and “experts” think that an electoral victory for the Islamists is just fine and dandy. They will obey the rules; be worn down by the necessary compromises of democratic politics; have to focus their efforts on collecting garbage, running schools, and fixing roads; and then another election will come along and things will always be all right.

They come close to saying: Ha, ha, ha! They’re in power? So what can they possibly do with control over the state and all of its resources to change anything significantly? There are democratic rules after all!

A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. This version is better and I own the rights so I urge you to read and link to my version.

By Barry Rubin

The title of this article is a play on an American television
series called, “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader.” It’s a quiz show in which
adults are pitted against fifth grade students in answering a series of
questions. The gimmick, as you might guess, is that the fifth graders win.

Why is that? The trick is that the questions are attuned to
the curriculum of a fifth-grade class. If the contestants were to be asked how
to fill in a tax form, what temperature to cook a pot roast, or what to do if
your in-laws insults you, the adults would presumably do better.

I’m using this analogy to explain an interesting paradox of
the present world: Western government
officials, journalists, and “experts” seem to believe that they and liberal
Arab reformers are smarter than Islamists. After all, the latter are just medieval
hicks who cling to their guns and religion aren’t they? Oh, they are non-violent?
Well, ok.

If it is assumed that revolutionary Islamists are stupid and
inept, then obviously the moderate reformists are going to win. Oh, the
Islamists are moderate, too? Well, ok.

Why did the Western establishment assume almost up the moment
that the ballots were counted that the reformers would win and not the
Islamists? Because of cultural shortsightedness. Indeed, this kind of thing can
be accurately called precisely the type of Western arrogance so often denounced
as imperialist and racist.

Let’s see:

--The moderates speak better English than the Islamists and
more of them are fluent in that language.

--The moderates are generally dressed in more Western
clothes, especially the women.

--The moderates use the same phrases and concepts as the Western
“experts,” journalists, and officials.

--The moderates use social media more and to a greater level
of effectiveness

Here’s the problem

Problem: Precisely by being more Western they are less typical of Arabs and
Muslims in general. Indeed, as everyone in their societies know, a number of aspects
of their behavior and ideas are of Western, non-Arab, non-Christian origin. That
makes them less popular with the masses who “cling to…antipathy
to people who aren’t like them…as a way to explain their frustrations.”

It’s ironic that the man most responsible for the
West’s current policy disaster in the region thinks this is so in America’s
Middle West but not so in the Middle East.

But there’s more, much more.

The Islamists—and certainly the Muslim Brotherhood—is
disciplined and unified. We keep hearing about “splits” in the Brotherhood that
are merely tactical maneuvers, showing the Islamists are smarter—or at least
better able to fool people--than the reporters who cover them.

On the contrary, the moderates are always feuding,
engaging in bitter personal disputes and ideological hairsplitting while there ship
is sinking amidst a crowd of sharks. That’s what happened in Turkey, Tunisia,
and Egypt. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah leaders ran against each
other while Hamas candidates sailed by with pluralities to win the election.

The fact that the Islamists are better organized
than the moderates not because they have had more time but simply because they
are better at organizing. The liberals tend to be intellectuals who think that
writing an op-ed is a major political accomplishment. The democrats have far
fewer dedicated volunteers and they have less money, too. And they are worse at
stating and spreading their message—true, their message is more complicated—than
the Islamists.

Here’s another point: The Islamists have learned to
use nationalism as well as religion, giving them a near-monopoly on the two
most powerful stimuli of passion in the Arabic-speaking world. Hizballah combined Shia Muslim communal
nationalism with Islamism in Lebanon; Hamas merged Palestinian nationalism with
Islamism. Al-Qaida targeted the West and in Iraq took over Sunni Muslim
communal nationalism, while the Muslim Brotherhood portrayed itself as the best
leader for Egypt’s interests and wrested the Palestinian issue from then
nationalists.

While some of the liberal leaders have
shown great courage, especially under the old regime, they are very
unimpressive in the charisma and general leadership departments. Consider the
two best-known Egyptian leaders: Ayman Nour and Muhammad ElBaradei. Nour seems
to have been badly damaged by his term in an Egyptian prison; ElBaradei spent
most of his life abroad. He was built up as an “American” candidate despite the
fact that at the time he was in an alliance with the Brotherhood.

The best the moderates can do are technocrats.
Maybe they can be transitional leaders but the moment the people speak they don’t
have a prayer.

Then there’s the Arab left, also badly
split (there are about a half-dozen Egyptian leftist parties in Egypt that are
all of equal (small) size). True, in Tunisia the two main left parties did well
but they split the vote among themselves and with the two moderate parties and
then quickly jumped into a coalition with the Islamists. Much of the left seems
to regard the Islamists, rather than the moderates, as the lesser of two evils.

The bottom line is that Western observers
think that the moderates are the natural winners and hence there was nothing to
fear from revolution and free elections. They were wrong, dead wrong, but it is
other people who are going to end up dead as a result.

This brings us back to the television
program. The fifth-graders win because they are more familiar with the material
than are the adults. Similarly, the Islamists are far more familiar with their
society than the Western politicians, journalists, and “experts” or, for that
matter, their own moderate rivals.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

In writing my satirical article, “Karl Marx Visits Occupied Wall Street,” I reread the Communist Manifesto several times and found it very useful to do so. It recalled for me the wonderful course in Western Civilization taught by the incomparable Professor Carroll Quigley I took more than four decades ago in which we read and analyzed the great works of political philosophy. The fact that there or so few courses like that anymore—and especially not mandatory ones—is an important factor in the decline of American higher education and of the dumbing down of America to the low point of the Obama era.

But I digress. In reading the Manifesto, I was fascinated to see a problem emerge at the very center of the current political-intellectual mess. If we examine how Marx got things wrong on this issue, a lot becomes clear.

As you know, Marx considered himself to be a scientist uncovering the iron laws of politics, society, and history. Up to a point, he does try to take that approach, even if you disagree with him. But at a certain moment he turns from hardheaded realist to starry-eyed utopian. And the key issue is one on which the founders of America got it right: the problem of government.

First, a little background: in attributing history, politics, and society to class struggle, Marx discussed one important aspect of these things. The problem is that he made this the only issue of any importance. Left out were such things as ideology; psychology and human nature; deep-seated drives of some individuals for power, wealth, and fame; family, tribal, and national loyalty; and other things as well. Marx is a reductionist, a man who constantly must reduce complex issues to a single cause.

Yet his biggest blindspot—the one that has cost millions of lives and that is steering much of the Western world in the wrong direction today—is the role of government.

The founders of America knew very well that every democracy in history had failed. They knew that unless they understood why this had happened and remedied it, the United States would soon become just another monarchy or dictatorship.

They found the answer in this principle: No one can be trusted with power; every individual, party, or group will inevitably abuse power. Thus, the solution they proposed was to divide up power, to ensure that nobody got too much of it. They did this in several different ways:

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Only days before parliamentary elections, Egypt is in a huge crisis whose outcome will determine the future of almost 80 million people and perhaps the Arabic-speaking world's fate for decades to come.

Will the army go ahead with elections that will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Salafist groups, thus producing an Islamist regime or

Will it cancel elections, declare martial law in some form and set off a bloody civil conflict?

That’s quite a difficult choice and not one the army prefers. Understandably, the military has a third alternative: set up some compromise rules for the new Egyptian state that leave it feeling secure even if this plan sacrifices a lot of other factors.

The nominal cause of this upheaval are the demonstrations in Tahrir square that have produced a bloodier tool than any single event in the entire Egyptian revolutionary process, with more than 30 people dead. But the real background is this:

Despite the persistent mocking of Western officials, media, and “experts” about the Muslim Brotherhood’s weakness and moderation, it has become increasingly apparent that a very radical Muslim Brotherhood will take power and fundamentally transform Egypt into something far worse than that which existed during the six-decades-long Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak regime.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

November 1989, Moscow
During the Polish anti-Communist revolt, spearheaded by the workers, a joke
swept through Poland. According to the story, the Communist dictator couldn’t
figure out what to do in order to put down the uprising. So he went to Moscow to
visit Lenin’s tomb for inspiration and the Soviet authorities closed it down to
let him meditate there.
"Oh Lenin,” said President Wojciech Jaruzelski, the situation is terrible.
Thecountry is in turmoil; the economy is collapsing; counterrevolutionaries are
everywhere, the imperialists are subverting Poland, and the church is backing
the revolt. What should I do?
Suddenly, Lenin, mummified as he was, came to life, sat up, and shouted,
“Arm the workers!”

November 2011, New York City
The bear-like man with wild hair and long beard waddled down the lower
Manhattan street. That “old mole,” revolution, has stuck its head up into the
air again, sniffed the carbon dioxide laden firmament, and didn’t scurry back
down into the hole. A specter was haunting the world all right.

He was excited to see it first-hand. But the sight was a shock. This was no
organized group of class-conscious proletarians but the flotsam of bourgeois
society. Drug users and sex fiends; spoiled brats from the upper bourgeoisie,
and anarchists.

He had written about:

“The social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest
layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a
proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for
the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.”

Perhaps his first impression was misleading or perhaps this movement was
indeed a tool of reactionary intrigue. He must investigate further.

Monday, November 21, 2011

What is the definition of insanity? Repeating the same behavior and expecting
different results.

What is the definition of Middle East policy insanity? Intensifying the same
behavior that has already failed and expecting a better result.

Example: After 60 years of failure by radical Arab nationalism being
intransigent, warring on the West, trying to destroy Israel, and seeking to
create a utopian Arab society that turns into a ightmare, we are about to get
six decades or so of revolutionary Islamism doing each of these things in an
even more extreme way.

But here's my favorite instance for today. For almost three years, the
Palestinian Authority (PA) has refused to negotiate with Israel. It has kept
none of its commitments, rejected every U.S. initiative, and wasted an entire
year playing with a unilateral independence bid at the UN to avoid making a
compromise peace. It has made a unity agreement with the genocidal, antisemitic
Hamas.

The PA has also been rife with corruption and there is a huge economic
catastrophe facing Europe. Oh, and the PA also maintains a huge,
well-paid security establishment that doesn't do anything useful and has on its
payroll antisemitic preachers who spew hate

So how does Europe respond? Obviously by increasing
aid to the PA by 20 percent, from 500 million to 600 million Euros for
2012.

That will teach them a lesson all right! But what lesson? Why the lesson that
extremism, intransigence, refusal to make peace, inciting to violence
and glorifying terrorism are rewarded.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

On November 28, Egyptians will vote for a parliament which will also write
the country’s new constitution. The Western media at first told us that the
Muslim Brotherhood was weak and unimportant as well as moderate. Now, when it’s
too late, the Western media is admitting they are strong and radical. But the
Obama Administration insists they are strong and moderate.

The last time I read an article in the Atlantic on the Brotherhood, it
claimed that the group was a joke and only had 13 percent support. Now it is publishing
an article that takes for granted that the Brotherhood will win the
election.

There’s a new
poll out that I don’t think is accurate but keep reading and I’ll tell you
why it is misleading in a moment.

According to the poll, 38 percent of Egyptians would vote for the Muslim
Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. (Remember when we were told that this
was a moderate split-off from the Brotherhood?) and 12 percent would vote for
the even more radical al-Nour Party.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

A leading journalist heard my analysis on the rise of the radical Islamists in the Middle East,
how U.S. policy is helping them, and why this is a disaster. His response? How
could I say that Hamas was radical and wanted to wipe out Israel since it had
not continually attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip?

Although this remark was about a very specific issue, I understood the
general concept underlying it. To be a radical or extremist, many Westerners
seem to believe, means you are a drooling loony, a caricature of a bomb-throwing
revolutionary, like a rabid dog unable to stop himself from biting anyone within
reach.
If you wear a tie and jacket, or just a jacket, or speak patiently and
protest your moderation, or have patience you cannot be a radical.

Oh, yes, you are also not a radical if you claim not to be one, even if
that’s only done in English while you are calling for Islamist revolution,
Sharia law, genocide against the Jews, and anti-Western hate in Arabic. Yet
radicals have used strategy for many decades. Lenin wrote a short book, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile
Malady, to ridicule the mindless extremists in his movement. The Muslim
Brotherhood took a similar view of al-Qaida as being a one-note terrorist group.
The whole Turkish model of revolutionary Islamism is based on a patient
strategy of hiding their true objectives and maneuvering into total control.

Why cannot Western elites see this kind of lightly camoflauged extremism,
used by thoroughly by the Communists and also, though this has been largely
forgotten, by Nazi and fascist movements.

Friday, November 18, 2011

note: I do propose a solution to this problem at the end of the article!

By Barry Rubin

I’ve come to realize a hitherto hidden dimension of why it is so hard for
Western establishment figures (policymakers, journalists, and academics) to
understand the Middle East. It is the conflict between the thirst for good news
and the reality of bad news.

Being optimists (based on the relatively good course of their own societies?)
and believing that positive change is really easy if people only put their minds
to making it happen (ditto and also liberal thinking), they exaggerate any sign
that things are getting better.

Moreover, contemporary thinking trembles in horror about saying anything
critical about Third World peoples (racism, Islamophobia) while it is
considered noble to criticize “ourselves.” On top of that is the assumption
that no one can really be radical. They are just responding to past mistreatment
and will revert to being moderate the minute the oppression is corrected.

So constantly we are led to an artificial optimism that ignores threats or
even converts them into benefits.
How many examples I see every day!

A group of young Palestinians in Fatah, who explicitly say they want to wipe
out Israel, form a new group and--hocus-pocus--we are informed that this is the
long-awaited Palestinian equivalent of the dovish Israeli Peace Now
movement!

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Another version of this article is published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the copyright, this version is better, and I ask you to read and link to this one.

By Barry Rubin

The only honest answer
to the question of what will happen in Syria is: No one knows. After an eight-month-long
battle in which more than 3500 people have been killed, there’s no telling who will
be ruling Syria when the dust settles, or even when the dust will settle. A
regime victory is quite possible—perhaps most likely—and its overthrow might--but
not necessarily--bring an Islamist regime.

But what do we know
about Syria? Here’s a guide.

1. 1. Don’t overrate Iran’s role.

Despite wild rumors, the
Syrian regime doesn’t need Iranians to help it repress the people. Iran is
important as a source of financing for the government, but this is President
Bashar al-Asad’s battle to win or lose. Tehran is definitely going to be a
secondary factor.

2. Syria’s other ally is
Hizballah but the killing of so many Sunni Muslims, including Muslim
Brotherhood people, has lost it Hamas. There is a sort of Sunni-Shia version of
the Spanish Civil War going on now. But when it comes to the radical and
Islamist forces on both sides there’s no good guy.

2. 3. And Turkey isn’t the good guy

The Turkish Islamist
regime isn’t motivated by some love of democracy in opposing the Syrian regime.
The Ankara government wants a fellow Sunni Islamist dictatorship in Damascus,
preferably under its influence. In this situation, Turkey is just as bad as
Iran.

3. 4. Will the two sides make a deal?

No, this is a war to the
death. The regime cannot make a deal and yield power because the elite would lose
everything it has. Moreover, the government elite would face death, exile, or
long-term imprisonment if it loses. Similarly, the dominant Alawite community
and large portions of the Christian one (together roughly 25 percent of the
population) risks massacre if the government falls.

4. 5 . Will the army bring down the regime or change
sides?

No, see point 3. While
some are defecting (see below), the high command cannot survive a change of
power. Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the armed forces cannot usher in a new
regime that would continue its economic privileges.

5. 6. Is this now an inter-communal war?

Net yet. There are hints
of small-scale communal killings but if and when such a blood bath begins you’ll
know and it will be terrible indeed. This
outcome might be avoidable but the situation is very dangerous.

6. 7. Is Syria now in a civil war?

This is beginning.
Defectors from the military have formed a Free Syrian Army. A nine-member
Military Council has been formed including five colonels. Note the lack of
generals (see Point Four) and all of them appear to be Sunni Muslim Arabs (see
Point Five). They say they are going to fight the regime and defend the
populace. But from where will they get arms?

8.Will economic collapse bring down the regime?

No. See Points 1, 3, and
5. Nobody is going to quit because they get hungry. This is a kill-or-be-killed
situation.

9. Is Syria going to
encourage a war against Israel?

No. Historically, Middle
Eastern dictatorships have provoked war against Israel to distract attention
from problems at home. The most likely scenario would be a Hizballah-Israel
war, as happened in 2006. But we’re past that point for the Syrian regime
(though a radical Egypt might try this tactic after 2013.) In addition,
Hizballah is trying to consolidate power in Lebanon and a war would be very
much against its interests.

10.
Who is the opposition leadership?

Ah,
that’s a very interesting question. The best-known group is the Syrian National
Council (SNC). It has announced its 19-member leadership group which includes
15 Sunni Muslims, two Christians, and 2 Kurds.
Note that there are no Alawites or Druze. The SNC has an advantage
because it was assembled by the United States using the Islamist regime in
Turkey.

Given
Western backing the SNC is surprisingly dominated by Islamists. Ten of the 19
are identifiable as such (both Muslim Brothers and
independent—Salafist?—Islamists) and a couple of those who are nominally
leftists are apparently Islamist puppets. The fact that U.S. policy is backing
an Islamist-dominated group indicates the profound problems with Obama
Administration policy.

It
should be stressed, though, that the SNC’s popular support is totally untested.
Many oppositionists—especially Kurds—are disgusted by the group’s Islamist
coloration and refuse to participate.

The
National Coordination Committee (NCC) is a
leftist-dominated alternative. The Antalya Group is liberal. There is also a
Salafist council organized by Adnan Arour, a popular religious figure; a
Kurdish National Council and a Secular Democratic Coalition (both angry at the
SNC’s Islamism);

It is hard to overestimate how disastrous Obama Administration
policy has been. Not only has it promoted an Islamist-dominated leadership
(which might be pushed into power by monopolizing Western aid) but this mistake
has fractured the opposition, ensuring there would be several anti-SNC groups.
This strategy has also angered the Kurds and Turkmen minorities who view the
SNC as antagonistic to their hopes for some autonomy. As a result, these two
groups have reduced their revolutionary activities.

The best source on these events is the exiled democrat Ammar
Abdulhamid whose daily Syrian Revolution Digest is indispensable to understand what’s going on
in the country. He writes that, despite U.S. and Turkish support, nobody will
recognize the SNC as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian
people” because of its “overrepresentation of certain currents and
underrepresentation of others, as well as lack of transparency in the selection
and decision-making processes, not to mention lack of clear political vision
and transitional plans.”

Again, it should be stressed that in terms of actually directing
the rebellion, there is no leadership.

10.
So who do we want to win?

Despite the threat of a
Sunni Islamist regime, I hope that Asad will be overthrown. Why? If the regime
survives we know it will continue to be a ferociously repressive dictatorship,
allied with Iran, and dedicated to the destruction of U.S. and Western
interests, the imperialist domination of Lebanon, wiping Israel off the map,
and subverting Jordan.

With a revolution, there
is a chance—especially if U.S. policy doesn’t mess it up—for a real democracy
that is higher than in Egypt. In Syria only 60 percent of the population is
Sunni Muslim and thus might be potential recruits to be Islamist. The minorities—Alawite, Christian, Druze, and
Kurdish—don’t want an Arab Sunni Islamist regime.

As for the Sunnis
themselves, they are proportionately more urban, more middle class, and more
moderate than in Egypt. Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have
never been as strong in Syria as in Egypt. In Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, the
Islamists face what is largely a political vacuum; in Syria they have real, determined
opposition.

Today, the Syrian people
have two major enemies blocking the way to a moderate stable democracy. One is
the regime itself; the other is the U.S.-Turkish policy that is
determined—naively for the former; deviously deceitful from the latter—to force
a new repressive Islamist regime on the Syrians.

When an author writes a serious article he's always pleased to find a
serious reader, especially when his words have been dishonestly distorted a foreign minister, a deputy foreign minister, and an
ambassador. Such was the fate of my analysis of the terrorist massacre
in Norway, "The
"Oslo Syndrome" and the Terror Attack in Norway."

Now a retired Army colonel and contrlbuting editor of American Diplomacy, James L.
Abrahamson, has
written an actual analysis of what I wrote on this controversial issue,
understood my points, and pointed out the misquotes created by the Norwegian
media and government. What could be better than that? American Diplomacy is an
important journal by and for diplomats and officers.

He concludes:

"What Rubin wanted his readers to learn from Breivik’s horrible attacks was,
first, that mass murder of civilians is NEVER justified, and, second, that if
the public without exception condemns terror, those who engage in the tactic
will abandon it when it no long appears `politically successful.'”

This article also confirms my conclusion that in general American diplomats
and military officers, both those still in service and those retired, understand
the current situation far better than their politician masters and the academic
"experts." There is hope if these people speak out.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

It’s always fascinating to read the work of genuine Arab (or non-Arab Muslim) moderates to see how much it differs from the
Western-celebrated false moderates and radicals so prominently featured
in the mass media and academia. Indeed, people like the following writer can
never be found as heroes of the official West because they tell inconvenient truths about the Middle East.

Consider a young Saudi named Mshari al-Zaydi. He is the opinion
page editor of Al-Sharq
al-Awsat, the best Arabic newspaper, where this article first
appeared. It was then reprinted on the website of al-Arabiyya, the UAE
alternative to the radical Qatari al-Jazira. Funny, how the anti-Western al-Jazira
is lionized by the West while al-Arabiyya is ignored.

Al-Zaydi’s
article is entitled, “The Muslim Brotherhood Spring,” an apt name for what
is otherwise called the “Arab Spring.” One need merely quote what al-Zaydi
writes:

“Today, those who supported the Egyptian revolution are in a state
of shock with regards to the domination of the political arena by religious
parties and currents….What we are seeing is a political Islamist tsunami….

Monday, November 14, 2011

Suppose that during the Cold War years, the American president’s favorite
leader and guide to Latin America was Fidel Castro. That would worry you, right?
But such a notion is ridiculous, isn’t it?
Not today it isn’t. President Barack Obama can’t stand Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. In a recent statement to French President Nicholas Sarkozy,
caught by a microphone both men thought was off, Obama said: "You're fed up with
him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

There is, however, a man who Obama loves to deal with, if not every day at
least as often as possible: Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

As Turkish expert Soner Cagaptay put it, “The United States and Turkey are on
a honeymoon, with President Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan having
formed what is probably the best relationship between a U.S. president and a
Turkish prime minister in decades…. Obama and Erdogan seem to have really hit it
off…. The two leaders speak often… and frequently agree on policy.”
I would also stress that Erdogan is Obama’s tutor on Middle East affairs:

--When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Obama Administration
officials claim that Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood are really moderate
and will be further moderated by being in power, the only example provided was
that Erdogan’s regime is moderate.

--The U.S. government announced last September 11 its self-described main
initiative for the tenth anniversary of the attacks on America. It was an
international counterterrorist organization with Turkey as the sole co-chair.
Israel was not invited to join.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Happy New Jumblatt! What’s a Jumblatt? Well, it’s a joke that tells us a lot
about Middle East politics. A friend of mine created the “Jumblatt” as a unit of
time, one complete rotation in the political maneuvers of Lebanese Druze leader,
Walid Jumblatt.

For example, during the previous Jumblatt, he moved from being a stalwart
client of Syria to join the March 14 Coalition to push Syrian troops out of
Lebanon. At the peak of the last Jumblatt, he gave a rather unforgettable
interview which I will paraphrase here (note: this is my wording not a precise
quote):

Interviewer: Is it true that you called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a
dog?

Jumblatt: Yes, I did. But I want to apologize to all dogs for comparing them
to Assad.

But like all Jumblatts the last one came to an end. Threatened with death,
facing a powerful Hizballah militia, and knowing full well that he and his
coalition allies couldn’t depend on the United States or France, Jumblatt
surrendered in August 2009, deserting the pro-democratic alliance and joining
Hizballah’s coalition! He made his peace with Syria, going to Damascus and
bowing to Bashar al-Assad.

This was not something easy for a man whose father was murdered by Bashar’s
father.

I’m not suggesting that Jumblatt is a coward or a buffoon though, certainly,
his life has given him a sense of irony. After all, Jumblatt is the feudal
hereditary leader of the Progressive Socialist Party. See, names don’t
necessarily tell you what’s really going on, a good idea to keep in mind when
examining the humanitarian-style slogans of “Moderate Islamists.”

During a conversation when they thought nobody was listening French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. President Barack Obama said nasty things about Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A lot of the analysis about what this tells
us I think is rather misleading.

Regarding Sarkozy, French-Israel relations have been good and there have not
been major problems with Sarkozy. On one hand, Sarkozy has been far friendlier
to Israel than his Gaullist and Socialist predecessors. True, he is surrounded
by some hostile advisors, including the career staff at the Foreign Ministry,
but on the other hand there is a defense and counterterrorism establishment that
admires Israel.

Indeed, Sarkozy helped kill the Palestinian unilateral independence effort in
the UN Security Council, a major service to Israel. Yet France voted in favor of
the Palesstinian entry into the UNESCO organization. Incidentally, Sarkozy has
also not been a fan of Obama in the past.

Why suddenly has Sarkozy turned against Netanyahu? I can't prove it but I
think there is evidence for the following scenario. Sarkozy decided that he was
going to broker a major deal at the UN, showing that France was a leading great
power in the world. (A theme I think you have heard before is a major French
goal.) So he went to Netanyahu with a proposal: Israel would accept unilateral
independence for Palestine and Sarkozy would get Israel something from the
Palestinians (perhaps recognition of a Jewish state?).

Friday, November 11, 2011

A different version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I prefer you link to and read this more complete version.

By Barry Rubin

Few realize how U.S. policy at the start of the radical Islamist era in Middle East history parallels that prevailing during the beginning of the previous, Arab nationalist, era that began in the 1950s. Briefly, American policymakers at that time believed that Arab nationalist military officers would be moderate, pro-Western, enhance stability, and fight totalitarianism.

Today, the policymakers expect that revolutionary Islamism will do the same thing. More than a half-century ago, though, there was no public debate (or even knowledge) of what was happening. Equally, American and European leaders only played a minor role in the launching of six wasted decades of dictatorship, war, terrorism, hatred, and stagnation. Today, they are playing major roles as enablers.

During the early 1950s, there were
understandably great fears that communism and Soviet influence would spread
throughout the Middle East. And so some liberal
strategists argued that the solution was to be found in a “third alternative”:
efficient moderate secular nationalist movements that would replace the old,
corrupt, unpopular regimes but would not become part of the communist bloc. The
new regimes would win the people’s loyalty, modernize the countries and raise
living standards. And who in a country like, say, Egypt could do this? What was the most efficient and
modernized of institutions in the Arab world able to achieve this result? The
army.

This involvement shouldn’t be overstated. But the U.S. government did accept the idea and the CIA was tasked to implement this policy. Certainly, in Iran and Guatemala during the 1950s, the U.S. government feared—with good reason--that the local liberal nationalist forces were too close to Communism and supported coups against them. But all the more reason, went the argument, that the United States needed its own form of non-Communist liberal nationalism.

Many years ago, I tracked down all the former staff members of the U.S. embassy in Cairo from 1952 that I could find. I particularly remember my conversation with a former, long retired, deputy military attaché who told me of what happened to him in the early morning hours of July 23, 1952.

He was awakened from sleep by a loud pounding on his door (security arrangements were less impressive in those days). It was one of his friends from the Egyptian army who, without even saying hello, breathlessly yelled in an excited voice:

“We have seized control of the government! We’ve taken over the radio station!” Then, he paused, calmed down, and asked with some embarrassment, “May I come in?”

By the way, this man later became head of the left-wing faction of the military regime, supported the Soviet, and was purged by President Anwar al-Sadat in the early 1970s.

There were also murky U.S. connections with the Syrian army and its political ambitions at the time.
The U.S. government, however, only played a tiny role in the Arab nationalist takeovers of that area. Soon it became clear that the new Egyptian government was radical, anti-Western, and the biggest threat to regional stability. Oh, and it also allied itself quickly with the Soviets. In other words, the U.S. effort to create a moderate new kind of regime to be the West’s friend, promote stability, and fight Communism in the Middle East resulted in creating a radical new kind of regime that was the West’s enemy, the USSR’s friend, and the source of instability in the region.

True, the Eisenhower Administration soon wised up. It’s possible to provide the precise date. On April 1, 1955, a State Department paper set out the new U.S. policy. Egypt was threatening America’s friends in the region—notably Saudi Arabia—and thus American strategy must be to align with the non-radical regimes against the new pro-Soviet ones.

Israel wasn’t on the list of friends as the U.S.-Israel relationship was minimal. That didn’t prevent the Arabs from hating America. By the way, there’s a neat cable from the U.S. Embassy in Damascus from about that time noting the beginning of Syrian television. Naturally, the cable said humorously, the starting program was an anti-American one.

Despite making serious errors—including saving the radical Egyptian regime from being overthrown by Britain, France, and Israel in the 1956 Suez war—the Eisenhower Administration and contemporary experts quickly grasped the nature of the threat and took measure to deal with it.

In addition, the Eisenhower and Truman administration could be excused because they had no experience with a brand new phenomenon. Yet today such a rationale doesn’t exist.

Bottom line: The United States did not create the monster that did to the Middle East during the second half of the twentieth century what Godzilla did to Tokyo, but it certainly took him out to lunch and gave him a few high-fives before figuring out where all the corpses and flattened buildings came from.

Fast forward to today. The Obama Administration thinks it is going to create a new type of regime, the modern Muslim democracy. It hopes these governments will promote stability, be friendly to the West, and fight the “real” dangerous Islamists, a category that seems almost totally restricted to al-Qaida. This time, the U.S. government is supposedly helping the “nice” revolutionary Islamists.

Another factor making the Truman and Eisenhower management better than that of Obama is that the Egyptian Free Officers had not cheered terror attacks on America (September 11) or spoke incessantly about committing genocide against Israel before they got into power.

Finally, a lot of the radicalism and ambitions had gone out of Arab nationalism by the late 1970s. The regimes settled down to being dictatorships that rewarded their elites, much as had happened in the USSR. Still, we shouldn’t exaggerate their middle-aged passivity or cynicism. Saddam Hussein did invade Iran, Kuwait, and fire missiles at Israel. The Syrian regime backed terrorism, sought to control Lebanon, and struggled against U.S. interests and Israel’s existence. As for Arab nationalist ideas, the “Arab” part kept them meddling in the region and undermining a “normal” state situation, while the nationalist part mobilized popular support.

Remarkable, isn’t it, that there has been no serious discussion concerning the earlier phase of failed policy, nor of how key experts and government officials argued at the time that Iran’s revolution would lead to what we’d today call “moderate Islam?”

True, the Islamists might settle down into growing fat on corruption and cynical about their own slogans. Still, that could take decades. How many people will die? How many billions of dollars will be wasted? How many lives wrecked and development stifled?

In Iran, there certainly has been a lot of elite corruption and caution on foreign policy. But that doesn’t mean Tehran, after almost one-third of a century of Islamist rule, has been turned into a tame pussycat either. Remember that drive for nuclear weapons.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

“Why does America promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?”
Here’ how the question should be rephrased:

Why does America subvert the chances for democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?
Here’s the answer:

In some places—notably Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip—America does nothing to promote democracy and the downfall of anti-American regimes because it is afraid to challenge the dictatorships. In fact, at times it comes to their aid and comfort.

In Iran, it did so by wasting two years on engagement and by failing to back the democratic opposition, even at the height of protests over a stolen election.

In Syria, by coddling the dictatorship until that became too obviously gruesome in backing such a bloodthirsty regime during an all-out revolt. Since then the U.S. government sub-contracted choosing the Syrian opposition exile leadership to the Turkish Islamist regime. Naturally, it choose a majority of Islamists. So this is the group that will be asked by the U.S. government advice and get the money!

In the Gaza Strip, it helped the tyrants by pressing Israel to reduce sanctions and by doing nothing seriously to subvert that anti-American, genocidal revolutionary Islamist entity. Now it is empowering Hamas's strongest ally, the Muslim Brotherhood which in power would give Hamas a huge amount of help.

While in other places—such as Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia--it enables anti-American, anti-democratic, antisemitic, dictatorial movements.

But if I were to take Clinton’s question at face value the proper answer would be this:

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech justifying Obama Administration Middle East policy changes everything. True, it isn’t surprising. I’ve been writing for almost three years about how the current U.S. government thinks these things.

Do not underestimate this speech's importance. It isn't a reluctant acceptance that Islamists might win elections and take over coutries. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of that idea.

But now there can be no doubt that Obama’s Middle East policy is engaged in what might be the biggest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Millions of people will bemoan it as delivering their countries into the grip of repressive dictatorships.

The speech can be summarized as follows:

Islamist regimes—at least those whose “behavior” is proper--are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.

The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing). It is the equivalent of an American government telling you that Communism and fascism are no threat because they can be tamed by participating in elections and being in power.

Thus, the Obama Administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies. I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Saudi Arabia. That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, antisemitic groups.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Please feel free to send this to any appropriate people you know personally.

By Barry Rubin

Dear Distinguished Reader:

You have spent years working for the interests of the United States and years thinking about international affairs. Perhaps you have served in the State Department, Defense Department, National Security Council, or intelligence. Perhaps you are a member of the Council of Foreign Affairs or the Foreign Policy Association. Or maybe you are a university professor or work in a research center.

The time has come to speak out because the U.S. national interest is in danger and you know it.

You are reluctant, though, to say anything publicly about the perilous state of U.S. foreign policy today. Perhaps you are a Democrat or see yourself as a liberal (I know you don’t see yourself as a radical or Leftist). Possibly you believe in always supporting the government publicly. No doubt many of your friends and the newspapers you read tell you that everything is going great. And then there’s the matter of your prestige and, if you are still in government, of your career.

I understand all that but surely you see how badly, how mismanaged, is American diplomacy right now.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

They Don't Have a Prayer: The Arab Left and the Islamist Drive for Power
By Barry Rubin

In the “good old days” of Stalinist Communism, the Left would have called the Islamists, “clerical fascists.” These forces, the party line would have surely explained, were attempts by the bourgeoisie to fool the masses, using religion to distract them from their “true interests” of having socialism.

Thus, there would have been no doubt that the Left would have opposed the Islamists, indeed might have been the most ferocious of their enemies. After all they have totally different views on social issues and they are also competing for state power.

True, there would have been some temptation to “use’ these forces. As a German Communist slogan once put it, “After Hitler, Us.” I was going to say that this idea didn’t work out so well for them, though Nazi rule in Germany was half-followed by the German Democratic Republic.

In today’s world, however, the Left has no such ambiguous stance as it would have in the days when Marxism-Leninism was the hegemonic doctrine and the USSR or China the idols they worshipped. This phenomenon of Western leftist enabling for Islamism has often been noticed in the West but has not been examined so much in the Middle East. One reason, of course, is that the Left is a far less significant force there.

Just as the “Arab Spring” has brought out Islamist and liberal forces, however, it has also revived the Arab Left. A number of former Leftists have as individuals defected to the moderate forces. Precisely because they were relatively Westernized and had distanced themselves from tradition, they more easily passed over to democratic ideas. Several, few in number but often loud in voice, have become Islamists themselves.

As institutions, however, the Left has retained its identity as a distinct force, with two leftist parties doing well in Tunisian elections, ready to form a coalition as junior partners of the Islamisst party, and saying nice things about the Islamists (they are't scary, they're pro-democracy!) to the Western media.
So the Arab Left is not the polar opposite of the Islamists for several reasons:

Saturday, November 5, 2011

By Barry Rubin
One day in 1952, a young Arab intellectual was walking along the shore of the Nile when he spotted something glinting in the sun. He picked it up and saw that it was a small brass lamp. Thinking that he might have found an attractive antique he took it home and brushed off the sand with the sleeve of his jacket.

Suddenly, there was a bright flash that knocked him over. When he stood up and regained his senses he saw a large genie glaring at him. “I am the genie of the lamp,” it said, “and you are granted three wishes. Choose them wisely. But remember that you only get one wish every 59 years.”

The intellectual was a good man albeit—in the way of most intellectuals—a naïve and bumbling one. He wanted the best for his people and was fed up with the corrupt and stagnant monarchy.

Quickly he said, “I would like my country and the Arab people to have a different kind of government, a government that brings them together and makes them proud of their nation.”